2. tion with other mediating processes and the environment. It
must also be remembered that,
like the other cognitive processes, motivation cannot be seen.
All that can be seen is behav-
ior. Motivation is a hypothetical construct that is used to help
explain behavior; it should not
be equated with behavior. In fact, while recognizing the “central
role of motivation,” many
of today’s organizational behavior theorists “think it is
important for the field to reempha-
size behavior.”2
This chapter first presents motivation as a basic psychological
process. The more
applied aspects of motivation on job design and goal setting are
covered in the last part of
the chapter. The first section of this chapter clarifies the
meaning of motivation by defining
the relationship among its various parts. The need–drive–
incentive cycle is defined and ana-
lyzed. The next section is devoted to an overview of the various
types of needs, or motives:
both primary and secondary. The next section of the chapter
presents both the historical and
more complex contemporary theories of work motivation.
Finally, the two major motiva-
tion applications of job design and goal setting are given
attention.
THE BASIC MOTIVATION PROCESS
Today, virtually all people—practitioners and scholars—have
their own definitions of moti-
vation. Usually one or more of the following words are
included: desires, wants, wishes,
aims, goals, needs, drives, motives, and incentives. Technically,
7. Figure 6.1 graphically depicts the motivation process. Needs set
up drives aimed at
goals or incentives; this is what the basic process of motivation
is all about. In a systems
sense, motivation consists of these three interacting and
interdependent elements:
1. Needs. Needs are created whenever there is a physiological
or psychological imbal-
ance. For example, a need exists when cells in the body are
deprived of food and
water or when the personality is deprived of other people who
serve as friends or
companions. Although psychological needs may be based on a
deficiency, sometimes
they are not. For example, an individual with a strong need to
get ahead may have a
history of consistent success.
2. Drives. With a few exceptions,3 drives, or motives (the two
terms are often used inter-
changeably), are set up to alleviate needs. A physiological drive
can be simply
defined as a deficiency with direction. Physiological and
psychological drives are
action oriented and provide an energizing thrust toward
reaching an incentive. They
are at the very heart of the motivational process. The examples
of the needs for food
and water are translated into the hunger and thirst drives, and
the need for friends
becomes a drive for affiliation.
3. Incentives. At the end of the motivation cycle is the
incentive, defined as anything
8. that will alleviate a need and reduce a drive. Thus, attaining an
incentive will tend to
restore physiological or psychological balance and will reduce
or cut off the drive.
Eating food, drinking water, and obtaining friends will tend to
restore the balance and
reduce the corresponding drives. Food, water, and friends are
the incentives in these
examples.
These basic dimensions of the motivation process serve as a
point of departure for the
rest of the chapter. After discussion of primary and secondary
motives, the work-motiva-
tion theories and applications that are more directly related to
the study and application of
organizational behavior and human resource management are
examined.
Primary Motives
Psychologists do not totally agree on how to classify the various
human motives, but
they would acknowledge that some motives are unlearned and
physiologically based. Such
motives are variously called physiological, biological,
unlearned, or primary. The last
term is used here because it is more comprehensive than the
others. However, the use of the
term primary does not imply that these motives always take
precedence over the learned
secondary motives. Although the precedence of primary motives
is implied in some moti-
vation theories, there are many situations in which the
secondary motives predominate
over primary motives. Common examples are celibacy among
13. sleep, avoidance of pain,
sex, and maternal concern. Although these very basic
physiological requirements have
been equated with primary needs over the years, just like
personality traits discussed in the
last chapter, in recent years recognition is given to the role that
the brain may play in peo-
ple’s motives.4 The “hard-wiring” of emotional needs would
meet the primary criteria of
being unlearned and physiologically based. Neuropsychologists
are just beginning to do
research on the role the brain plays in motivation, but potential
applications to the work-
place are already being recognized. For example, Coffman and
Gonzalez-Molina note:
“What many organizations don’t see—and what many don’t
want to understand—is that
employee performance and its subsequent impact on customer
engagement revolve around
a motivating force that is determined in the brain and defines
the specific talents and the
emotional mechanisms everyone brings to their work.”5
However, even though the brain
pathways will be developed in different ways and people
develop different appetites for the
various physiological motives because people have the same
basic physiological makeup,
they will all have essentially the same primary needs, but not
the learned secondary needs.
Secondary Motives
Whereas the primary needs are vital for even survival, the
secondary drives are
unquestionably the most important to the study of
organizational behavior. As a human
14. society develops economically and becomes more complex, the
primary drives give way to
the learned secondary drives in motivating behavior. With some
glaring exceptions that
have yet to be eradicated, the motives of hunger and thirst are
not dominant among people
living in the economically developed world. In addition, further
breakthroughs in neuro-
psychology may receive more deserved attention.6 But for now,
the learned secondary
motives dominate the study and application of the field of
organizational behavior.
Secondary motives are closely tied to the learning concepts that
are discussed in Chap-
ter 12. In particular, the learning principle of reinforcement is
conceptually and practically
related to motivation. The relationship is obvious when
reinforcement is divided into pri-
mary and secondary categories and is portrayed as incentives.
Some discussions, however,
regard reinforcement as simply a consequence serving to
increase the motivation to per-
form the behavior again,7 and they are treated separately in this
text. Once again, however,
it should be emphasized that although the various behavioral
concepts can be separated for
study and analysis, in reality, concepts like reinforcement and
motivation do not operate as
separate entities in producing human behavior. The interactive
effects are always present.
A motive must be learned in order to be included in the
secondary classification.
Numerous important human motives meet this criterion. Some
of the more important ones
19. distributed by other people
(or agents). In the workplace, extrinsic motivators include pay,
benefits, and promotions.
Chapter 4 covered these commonly recognized extrinsic
motivators and, especially in
tough economic times, low-or no-cost extrinsic alternatives
include food (from doughnuts
to gourmet meals), games (e.g., one CPA firm holds a “mini-
Olympics” with games such
as who can pack a suitcase to take to an audit assignment the
fastest for a prize), or bring
in someone to do manicures or at-desk massages.8 Extrinsic
motives also include the drive
to avoid punishment, such as termination or being transferred.
In each situation, an external
individual distributes these items. Further, extrinsic rewards are
usually contingency
based. That is, the extrinsic motivator is contingent on
improved performance or perfor-
mance that is superior to others in the same workplace.
Extrinsic motivators are necessary
to attract people into the organization and to keep them on the
job. They are also often used
to inspire workers to achieve at higher levels or to reach new
goals, as additional payoffs
are contingent on improved performance.9 They do not,
however, explain every motivated
effort made by an individual employee. There is growing
research evidence on how to
enhance intrinsic motivation (e.g., providing choices).10
Another study found that when
intrinsic motivation accompanies other types, for example,
prosocial motivation, there will
be a more positive impact on desired outcomes such as
persistence, performance, and pro-
ductivity.11
20. Intrinsic motives are internally generated. In other words, they
are motivators that the
person associates with the task or job itself. Intrinsic rewards
include feelings of responsi-
bility, achievement, accomplishment, that something was
learned from an experience, feel-
TABLE 6.1. Examples of Key Secondary Needs
Need for Achievement
• Doing better than competitors
• Attaining or surpassing a difficult goal
• Solving a complex problem
• Carrying out a challenging assignment successfully
• Developing a better way to do something
Need for Power
• Influencing people to change their attitudes or behavior
• Controlling people and activities
• Being in a position of authority over others
• Gaining control over information and resources
• Defeating an opponent or enemy
Need for Affiliation
• Being liked by many people
• Being accepted as part of a group or team
• Working with people who are friendly and cooperative
• Maintaining harmonious relationships and avoiding conflicts
• Participating in pleasant social activities
Need for Security
• Having a secure job
• Being protected against loss of income or economic disaster
• Having protection against illness and disability
• Being protected against physical harm or hazardous conditions
25. an engaging task or goal.
Performing meaningful work has long been associated with
intrinsic motivation.12
As Manz and Neck noted, “Even if a task makes us feel more
competent and more
self-controlling, we still might have a difficult time naturally
enjoying and being motivated
by it if we do not believe in its worthiness. Most of us yearn for
purpose and meaning.”13
It is important to remember that these two types of motivators
are not completely dis-
tinct from one another. Many motivators have both intrinsic and
extrinsic components. For
example, a person who wins a sales contest receives the prize,
which is the extrinsic moti-
vator. At the same time, however, “winning” in a competitive
situation may be the more
powerful, yet internalized, motive.
To further complicate any explanation of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, cognitive
evaluation theory suggests a more intricate relationship. This
theory proposes that a task
may be intrinsically motivating, but that when an extrinsic
motivator becomes associated
with that task, the actual level of motivation may decrease.14
Consider the world of motion
pictures, where an actor often strives for many years to simply
be included in a film. The
intrinsic motive of acting is enough to inspire the starving
artist. Once, however, the same
actor becomes a star, the extrinsic motivators of money and
perks would, according to cog-
nitive evaluation theory, cause the individual to put less effort
26. into each performance. In
other words, according to this theory, extrinsic motivators may
actually undermine intrin-
sic motivation. This may seem like a confusing outcome, but
there is some research that
supports this theoretical position.15 However, as the meta-
analytically based principle at
the end of the chapter notes, there is considerable research
evidence that extrinsic rewards
may not detract from intrinsic motivation, and at least for
interesting, challenging tasks,
extrinsic rewards may even increase the level of intrinsic
motivation (see the end of the
chapter OB Principle).16
The seemingly contradictory findings make more sense when
the concept of negative
extrinsic motives is included. That is, threats, deadlines,
directives, pressures, and imposed
goals are likely to be key factors that diminish intrinsic
motivation. For example, consider
the difference between writing a book for fun versus writing a
book that must be completed
by a certain deadline in order to receive payment.17 There are
also a series of criticisms of
the cognitive evaluation theory, including that it was built on
studies largely using students
as subjects rather than workers in the workplace setting and that
actual decrements in
intrinsic motivation were relatively small when extrinsic
rewards were introduced.18
Chapter 7 will extend this discussion into social cognitive
variables such as self-effi-
cacy, and Chapter 12 will use an extended reinforcement
theory–based approach to behav-
30. de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Business Collection (EBSCOhost) -
printed on 12/29/2017 8:38 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIV
AT SHREVEPORT
AN: 999823 ; Luthans, Fred, Luthans, Kyle W., Luthans, Brett
C..; Organizational Behavior : An Evidence-based
Approach
Account: s3563253
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
IAP
PR
32. reviews conclude that there
has been relatively little new theory-building and research in
work motivation in recent
years.20 As Steers concluded, “over the past decade little will
be found focusing on genuine
theoretical development in this area.”21 The rest of the chapter
gives an overview of the
widely recognized historical and contemporary theories of work
motivation.
An Important Historical Contribution
Although the first part of the chapter mentions the most
important primary and second-
ary needs of humans, it does not relate them to a theoretical
framework. Abraham Maslow,
in a classic paper, outlined the elements of an overall theory of
motivation.22 Drawing
FIGURE 6.2. The Theoretical Development of Work Motivation
1900 Scientific Management
wage incentives
Human Relations
economic security,
working conditions Lewin and Tolmanexpectancy concerns
Maslow
hierarchy of needs
Herzberg
Vroom
valence/expectancy
38. carrots, the person will not strive to obtain another one and will
be motivated only by
the next higher level of needs.
2. Safety needs. This second level of needs is roughly
equivalent to the security need.
Maslow stressed emotional as well as physical safety. The
whole organism may
become a safety-seeking mechanism. Yet, as is true of the
physiological needs, once
these safety needs are satisfied, they no longer motivate.
3. Love needs. This third, or intermediate, level of needs
loosely corresponds to the
affection and affiliation needs. Like Freud, Maslow seems
guilty of poor choice of
wording to identify his levels. His use of the word love has
many misleading connota-
tions, such as sex, which is actually a physiological need.
Perhaps a more appropriate
word describing this level would be belongingness or social
needs.
4. Esteem needs. The esteem level represents the higher needs
of humans. The needs for
power, achievement, and status can be considered part of this
level. Maslow carefully
pointed out that the esteem level contains both self-esteem and
esteem from others.
5. Needs for self-actualization. Maslow’s major contribution, he
portrays this level as
the culmination of all the lower, intermediate, and higher needs
of humans. People
who have become self-actualized are self-fulfilled and have
realized all their poten-
42. S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Business Collection (EBSCOhost) -
printed on 12/29/2017 8:38 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIV
AT SHREVEPORT
AN: 999823 ; Luthans, Fred, Luthans, Kyle W., Luthans, Brett
C..; Organizational Behavior : An Evidence-based
Approach
Account: s3563253
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
IAP
PR
OO
FS
44. gratifying the self-actualizing need of growth-motivated
individuals can actually increase
rather than decrease this need. He also hedged on some of his
other original ideas, for
example, that higher needs may emerge after lower needs that
have been unfulfilled or sup-
pressed for a long period are satisfied. He stressed that human
behavior is multidetermined
and multimotivated.
Research findings indicate that Maslow’s is certainly not the
final answer in work
motivation. Yet the theory does make a significant contribution
in terms of making man-
agement aware of the diverse needs of employees at work. As
one comprehensive analysis
FIGURE 6.4. A Hierarchy of Work Motivation
SELF-
ACTUALIZATION
Personal growth,
realization of potential
ESTEEM NEEDS Titles,
status symbols,
promotions, banquets
SOCIAL NEEDS
Formal and informal
work groups or teams
SECURITY NEEDS
49. and experiential evidence
supporting the importance of Maslow’s various needs (e.g.,
Gallup survey research clearly
indicates that Maslow’s third level social needs are the single
most important contribution
to satisfaction with life24 and a lot of, if not most, high-
achieving people feel unfulfilled
because they have not reached self-actualization25).
In other words, such needs as social and self-actualization are
important to the content
of work motivation. The exact nature of these needs and how
they relate to motivation are
not clear. At the same time, what does become clear from
contemporary research is that
layoffs and terminations (i.e., downsizing) can reduce
employees to have concerns about
basic-level needs such as security. Organizations that endeavor
to reduce fears and other
strong emotional responses during these moments through
severance pay programs and
outplacement services may be able to lessen the impact of
individual terminations and lay-
offs, especially for those who remain with the company.26
In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in
humanistic psychology27 and
as will be discussed in the next chapter, positive psychology, of
which Maslow was one of
the pioneers. Throughout the years there have been attempts to
revitalize and make his
hierarchy of needs more directly applicable to work motivation.
In particular, Herzberg’s
two-factor theory covered next is based on Maslow’s concept,
and a number of others use
Maslow for constructing various hierarchies or pyramids. One
50. example is Aon Consult-
ing’s Performance Pyramid that starts with safety and security
and moves up through
rewards, affiliation, growth, and work and life harmony.28
There is little question that
Maslow’s theory has stood the test of time and still makes a
contribution to the study and
application to work motivation.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation
Another historically important contribution to work motivation
is the content theory of
Frederick Herzberg. Unlike Maslow, Herzberg many years ago
conducted a widely
reported motivational study on about 200 accountants and
engineers employed by firms in
and around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He used the critical
incident method of obtaining
data for analysis. The professional subjects in the study were
essentially asked two ques-
tions: (1) When did you feel particularly good about your job—
what turned you on; and (2)
When did you feel exceptionally bad about your job—what
turned you off?
Responses obtained from this critical incident method were
interesting and fairly con-
sistent. Reported good feelings were generally associated with
job experiences and job
content. An example was the accounting supervisor who felt
good about being given the
job of installing new computer equipment. He took pride in his
work and was gratified to
know that the new equipment made a big difference in the
overall functioning of his depart-
55. labeled the satisfiers motivators, and he called the dissatisfiers
hygiene factors. The term
hygiene refers (as it does in the health field) to factors that are
preventive; in Herzberg’s
theory the hygiene factors are those that prevent dissatisfaction.
Taken together, the moti-
vators and the hygiene factors have become known as
Herzberg’s two-factor theory of
motivation.
Relation to Maslow’s Need Hierarchy
Herzberg’s theory is closely related to Maslow’s need
hierarchy. The hygiene factors
are preventive and environmental in nature (see Table 6.2), and
they are roughly equivalent
to Maslow’s lower-level needs. These hygiene factors prevent
dissatisfaction, but they do
not lead to satisfaction. In effect, they bring motivation up to a
theoretical zero level and
are a necessary “floor” to prevent dissatisfaction, and they serve
as a platform or takeoff
point for motivation. By themselves, the hygiene factors do not
motivate. Only the motiva-
tors, Herzberg asserted, motivate employees on the job. They
are roughly equivalent to
Maslow’s higher-level needs. According to Herzberg’s theory,
an individual must have a
job with a challenging content in order to be truly motivated.
Contribution to Work Motivation
Herzberg’s two-factor theory provided a new light on the
content of work motivation.
Up to this point, management had generally concentrated on the
hygiene factors. When
56. faced with a morale problem, the typical solution was higher
pay, more fringe benefits, and
better working conditions. However, as has been pointed out,
this simplistic solution did
not really work. Management are often perplexed because they
are paying high wages and
salaries, have an excellent fringe-benefit package, and provide
great working conditions,
but their employees are still not motivated. Herzberg’s theory
offered an explanation for
this problem. By concentrating only on the hygiene factors,
management were not really
motivating their personnel.
There are probably very few workers or associates who do not
feel that they deserve
the raise they receive. On the other hand, there are many
dissatisfied associates and man-
agers who feel they do not get a large enough raise. This simple
observation points out that
the hygiene factors seem to be important in preventing
dissatisfaction but do not lead to sat-
isfaction. Herzberg would be the first to say that the hygiene
factors are absolutely neces-
sary to maintain the human resources of an organization.
However, as in the Maslow sense,
once “the belly is full” of hygiene factors, which is the case in
most modern organizations,
TABLE 6.2. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Hygiene Factors Motivators
Company policy and administration Achievement
Supervision, technical Recognition
61. Herzberg’s two-factor theory remains important in a historical
sense and a popular
textbook explanation of work motivation and it still makes
intuitive sense to practitioners.
However, it also is true that from an academic perspective,
Herzberg’s theory oversimpli-
fies the complexities of work motivation. When researchers
deviate from the critical inci-
dent methodology used by Herzberg, they do not get the two
factors. Further, there is
always a question regarding the samples used by Herzberg:
Would he have obtained the
results from low-complexity jobs such as truck drivers and
third-shift factory workers or
waitstaff personnel? Presumably both the hygiene factors and
satisfiers could be substan-
tially different when comparing these groups. Factors that affect
research results include
the age of the sample and other variables that are not held
constant or under control. In
international settings, older workers in an Israeli kibbutz
preferred jobs that had better
physical conditions and convenience. Also, Caribbean hotel
workers reported being more
interested in wages, working conditions, and appreciation for
their work as key motiva-
tors.29 These findings suggest that sample and setting may
affect preferences for motiva-
tors and hygiene factors.
Finally, there seem to be job factors such as pay that lead to
both satisfaction and dis-
satisfaction. For example, pay can be dissatisfying if not high
enough, but, as pointed out
in Chapter 4, also satisfying as a form of achievement and
recognition. These findings indi-
62. cate that a strict interpretation of the two-factor theory is not
warranted by the evidence.
In spite of the obvious limitations, few would question that
Herzberg has contributed
substantially to the study of work motivation. He extended
Maslow’s needs hierarchy con-
cept and made it more applicable to work motivation. Herzberg
also drew attention to the
importance of job content factors in work motivation, which
previously had been badly
neglected and often totally overlooked. However, even the
context can be made to better fit
the jobholder. For example, many Internet businesses never
have employees directly inter-
act with customers so their dress, appearance, and work space
can be highly informal and
designed according to personal choice.30
The job design technique of job enrichment is also one of
Herzberg’s contributions.
Job enrichment is covered in the last part of the chapter.
Overall, Herzberg added much to
the better understanding of job content factors and satisfaction,
but, like his predecessors,
he fell short of a comprehensive theory of work motivation. His
model describes only some
of the content of work motivation; it does not adequately
describe the complex motivation
process of organizational participants that will now be given
attention in the more complex
theories of work motivation.
The Porter-Lawler Expectancy Theory of Work Motivation
Comments in Chapter 5 on job satisfaction refer to the
67. satisfaction, and performance are
all separate variables and relate in ways different from what
was traditionally assumed.
Figure 6.5 depicts the multivariable model used to explain the
complex relationships
that exist among motivation, performance, and satisfaction. As
shown, boxes 1, 2, and 3 are
basically drawn from earlier cognitive concepts from pioneering
social psychologists such
as Kurt Lewin and Edward Tolman and from the recognized
seminal work motivation theory
of Victor Vroom.31 It is important to note, however, that Porter
and Lawler point out that
effort (force or motivation) does not lead directly to
performance. It is moderated by abilities
and traits and by role perceptions. More important in the Porter-
Lawler model is what hap-
pens after the performance. The rewards that follow and how
these are perceived will deter-
mine satisfaction. In other words, the Porter-Lawler model
suggests—and this is a significant
turn of events from conventional wisdom—that performance
leads to satisfaction.
The model has had research support over the years. For
example, a field study found
that effort level and direction of effort are important in
explaining individual performance
in an organization.32 Also, a comprehensive review of research
verifies the importance of
rewards in the relationship between performance and
satisfaction. Specifically, it was con-
cluded that performance and satisfaction will be more strongly
related when rewards are
made contingent on performance than when they are not.33
68. Implications for Practice
Although the Porter-Lawler model attempts to be more
applications oriented than the
earlier expectancy theories, it is still quite complex and has
proved to be a difficult way to
bridge the gap to actual human resource management practice.
To Porter and Lawler’s
FIGURE 6.5. The Porter-Lawler Motivation Model
1
Value
of reward
4
Abilities
and traits
Perceived
8
equitable
rewards
3 6
Performance
74. stressed that management
should make a concentrated effort to measure how closely levels
of satisfaction are related
to levels of performance, and in a practitioner-oriented article
emphasized that the accu-
racy of role perceptions may be the missing link in improving
employee performance.34
The inference here is that employees need to better focus their
efforts on high-impact
behaviors and activities that result in higher performance.
However, both studies35 and
comprehensive analyses36 continue to point out the complex
impact that the cognitive pro-
cess has in relation to rewards and other outcomes in
organizations.
Contributions to Work Motivation
The Porter and Lawler model has definitely made a significant
contribution to the bet-
ter understanding of work motivation and the relationship
between performance and satis-
faction, but has not had much impact on the actual practice of
human resource
management. Yet this expectancy theory provides certain
guidelines that can be followed
by human resource management. For example, on the front end
(the relationship between
motivation and performance), it has been suggested that the
following barriers must be
overcome:
1. Doubts about ability, skill, or knowledge
2. The physical or practical possibility of the job
3. The interdependence of the job with other people or activities
4. Ambiguity surrounding the job requirements37
75. To overcome these barriers, it is helpful to understand the role
other psychological
variables such as self-efficacy (covered in the next chapter)
play in effort-performance
relationships. A series of successes combined with positive
feedback build the employee’s
sense of self-efficacy, which can, in turn, lead to a heightened
sense that “I can do this.”
Greater effort may often be the result.38 In addition to
psychological constructs such as
self-efficacy, there are also pragmatic considerations such as
that the opportunity must be
present to actually perform. For example, there are many
second-string players in pro
sports that have stepped in for an injured starter to take the
team to the championship. The
back-up probably had sufficient valance (pay plus the bonus
check paid to the winners),
instrumentality or effort-performance calculations (ability
combined with self-efficacy),
and expectancy or performance-reward calculations (the belief
that goal achievement
would result in additional pay and recognition), yet still could
not succeed until he was
allowed to play due to the injury of the first-string player.
In addition, on the back end (the relationship between
performance and satisfaction),
guidelines such as the following have been suggested:
1. Determine what rewards each employee values
2. Define desired performance
3. Make desired performance attainable
4. Link valued rewards to performance39Co
80. rewards for performance. Many
times workers may be inspired by being given first choice in
selecting weeks for vacation,
being allowed to choose when they will go to lunch (ahead of
lower performers), being
awarded certificates or “employee of the month” parking spaces
or, as the accompanying
OB in Action: Nice Work If You Can Get It describes, new
rewards such as sabbaticals.
Recognition as a valence can be a powerful reward within the
expectancy theory frame-
work and was discussed in Chapter 4 and is given further
detailed attention in Chapter 12.
Equity Theory of Work Motivation
Equity theory has been around just as long as the expectancy
theories of work motiva-
tion. However, equity has received relatively more recent
attention in the organizational
behavior field. As Figure 6.2 indicates, its roots can be traced
back to cognitive dissonance
theory and exchange theory. As a theory of work motivation,
credit for equity theory is
usually given to social psychologist J. Stacy Adams. Simply
put, the theory argues that a
major input into job performance and satisfaction is the degree
of equity (or inequity) that
people perceive in their work situation. In other words, it is
another cognitively based moti-
vation theory, and Adams depicts how this motivation occurs.
Inequity occurs when a person perceives that the ratio of his or
her outcomes to inputs
and the ratio of a relevant other’s outcomes to inputs are
unequal. Schematically, this is
81. represented as follows:
Equity occurs when
Both the inputs and the outputs of the person and the other are
based on the person’s per-
ceptions. Age, sex, education, social status, organizational
position, qualifications, and
how hard the person works are examples of perceived input
variables. Outcomes consist
primarily of rewards such as pay, status, promotion, and
intrinsic interest in the job. In
essence, the ratio is based on the person’s perception of what
the person is giving (inputs)
and receiving (outcomes) versus the ratio of what the relevant
other is giving and receiving.
This cognition may or may not be the same as someone else’s
observation of the ratios or
the same as the actual reality. There is also recent recognition
that the cultural context may
affect the entire equity process.40
person's outcomes
person's inputs
------------------------------------------- other's outcomes
other's inputs
----------------------------------------
person's outcomes
person's inputs
------------------------------------------- other's outcomes
other's inputs
86. vation. The strength of this motivation is in direct proportion to
the perceived inequity that
exists. Adams suggests that such motivation may be expressed
in several forms. To restore
equity, the person may alter the inputs or outcomes, cognitively
distort the inputs or out-
comes, leave the field, act on the other, or change the other.
It is important to note that inequity does not come about only
when the person feels
cheated. For example, Adams has studied the impact that
perceived overpayment has on
equity. His findings suggest that workers prefer equitable
payment to overpayment. Work-
ers on a piece-rate incentive system who feel overpaid will
reduce their productivity in
order to restore equity. More common, however, is the case of
people who feel underpaid
(outcome) or overworked (input) in relation to others in the
workplace. In the latter case,
there would be motivation to restore equity in a way that may
be dysfunctional from an
organizational standpoint. For example, the owner of an
appliance store in Oakland, Cali-
fornia, allowed his employees to set their own wages.
Interestingly, none of the employees
took an increase in pay, and one service technician actually
settled on lower pay because
he did not want to work as hard as the others.
Research Support for Equity in the Workplace
To date, research that has specifically tested the validity of
Adams’s equity theory has
been fairly supportive. A comprehensive review found
considerable laboratory research
87. support for the “equity norm” (people review the inputs and
outcomes of themselves and
others, and if inequity is perceived, they strive to restore
equity) but only limited support
from more relevant field studies.41 One line of field research on
equity theory used baseball
players. In the first study, players who played out their option
year, and thus felt they were
inequitably paid, performed as the theory would predict.42
Their performance decreased in
three of four categories (not batting average) during the option
year, and when they were
signed to a new contract, the performance was restored.
However, a second study using the
same type of sample, only larger, found the opposite of what
equity theory would predict.43
Mainly, performance improved during the option year. The
reason, of course, was that
the players wanted to look especially good, even though they
felt they were inequitably
paid, in order to be in a stronger bargaining position for a new
contract. In other words,
individuals faced with undercompensation may choose to
decrease performance, but only
to the extent that doing so will not affect the potential to
achieve future rewards.44 In any
event, there are no easy answers nor is there 100 percent
predictive power when applying
a cognitive process theory such as equity.
Despite some seeming inconsistencies, more recent studies
using sophisticated statis-
tical techniques to estimate pay equity among ballplayers45 and
focusing more sharply on
subsequent performance and other outcomes are more in line
92. The Relationship Between Equity
and Organizational Justice
Recent theory development specifies that equity theory can be
extended into what is
now commonly known as organizational justice.48 Although
procedural justice has
received the most attention, there is now research evidence that
in addition there is concep-
tual and measurement independence (i.e., construct validity) for
distributive, interpersonal,
and informational justice dimensions as well.49 Equity theory
serves as the foundation for
the common thread of perceived fairness among these
dimensions of justice. For example,
equity theory explains conditions under which decision
outcomes (pay levels, pay raises,
promotions) are perceived as being fair or unfair. Persons
engaged in this type of thinking
examine the results as opposed to how those results were
achieved. Equity theory supports
a perception of distributive justice, which is an individual’s
cognitive evaluation regarding
whether or not the amounts and allocations of rewards in a
social setting are fair. In simple
terms, distributive justice is one’s belief that everyone should
“get what they deserve.”
Culturally, the Judeo-Christian ethic is based, in part, on the
notion that divine rewards
accrue to those who lead good lives and behave appropriately,
even while here are on earth.
This reflects the distributive justice and equity perspectives.
Importantly, meta-analytic
results have demonstrated that employee perceptions of
distributive justice are related to
93. desirable outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, organizational
citizenship behavior, turnover, and performance.50
Procedural justice is concerned with the fairness of the
procedure used to make a deci-
sion. For example, a pay raise may be based on a sales
representative selling more units of,
for example, automobiles or houses. Some coworkers may
consider this procedure to be
unfair, believing management should instead base pay raises on
dollar volume. This con-
clusion may be reached because selling 10 houses or cars for a
low amount of money each
contributes very little to company profits and they are, at the
same time, easier to sell. Sell-
ing high-priced cars or houses may take much longer to finalize,
but the profits garnered
for the company are also higher. In this case it is not the
outcome in dispute, which is the
amount of the pay received. Instead, it is the perceived justice
(fairness) of the procedure
used to reach the outcome. Like distributive justice, employee
perceptions of procedural
justice have been shown through meta-analysis to be related to
all the desirable organiza-
tional outcomes.51 Indeed, in another meta-analysis, procedural
justice was found to be a
better predictor of job performance than was distributive
justice52 and procedural justice
seems to be particularly important to successfully implementing
organizational changes.53
Procedural justice can raise issues of equality as opposed to
equity. Equality means
that in a promotion situation, males and females and all races
97. S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Business Collection (EBSCOhost) -
printed on 12/29/2017 8:38 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIV
AT SHREVEPORT
AN: 999823 ; Luthans, Fred, Luthans, Kyle W., Luthans, Brett
C..; Organizational Behavior : An Evidence-based
Approach
Account: s3563253
APPLICATIONS 147
IAP
PR
OO
FS
99. inequitable outcomes and inappropriate processes. For example,
retaliation in the form of
theft, sabotage, forged time cards, and even violence toward the
boss or owner can be
explained using the principles of organizational justice.60 On a
positive note, besides all the
findings summarized above, a recent study found that there is a
trickle-down effect from
organizational justice. Employees’ perceptions of fairness not
only positively affect their
attitudes and performance, but also influence their fair
treatment behaviors toward custom-
ers, which in turn cause the customers to react positively to
both the employee and the
organization.61 In other words, organizational justice pays off
not only for employees, but
also for customers and the bottom line.
Attribution Theory
Another contemporary theory of work motivation is attribution
theory. Attribution
refers simply to how people explain the cause of another’s or
their own behavior. Like
equity theory, it is the cognitive process by which people draw
conclusions about the fac-
tors that influence, or make sense of, one another’s behavior.62
There are two general types
of attributions that people make: dispositional attributions,
which ascribe a person’s
behavior to internal factors such as personality traits,
motivation, or ability, and situational
attributions, which attribute a person’s behavior to external
factors such as equipment or
social influence from others.63 In recent years, attribution
theories have been playing an
103. S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Business Collection (EBSCOhost) -
printed on 12/29/2017 8:38 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIV
AT SHREVEPORT
AN: 999823 ; Luthans, Fred, Luthans, Kyle W., Luthans, Brett
C..; Organizational Behavior : An Evidence-based
Approach
Account: s3563253
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
IAP
PR
OO
FS
105. differently if they perceive internal
attributes than they will if they perceive external attributes. It is
this concept of differential
ascriptions that has very important implications for motivation
and organizational behavior
in general.
Locus of Control Attributions
Using locus of control, work behavior may be explained by
whether employees per-
ceive their outcomes as controlled internally or externally.
Employees who perceive inter-
nal control feel that they personally can influence their
outcomes through their own ability,
skills, or effort. Employees who perceive external control feel
that their outcomes are
beyond their own control; they feel that external forces such as
luck or task difficulty con-
trol their outcomes. This perceived locus of control may have a
differential impact on their
motivation to perform. For example, classic studies by well-
known social psychologist
Julian Rotter found that skill versus chance environments
differentially affect behavior. In
addition, a number of studies have been conducted over the
years to test the attribution the-
ory-locus-of-control model in work settings. One study found
that internally controlled
employees are generally more satisfied with their jobs, are more
likely to be in managerial
positions, and are more satisfied with a participatory
management style than employees
who perceive external control.66 Other studies have found that
internally controlled man-
agers are better performers,67 are more considerate of
109. d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Business Collection (EBSCOhost) -
printed on 12/29/2017 8:38 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIV
AT SHREVEPORT
AN: 999823 ; Luthans, Fred, Luthans, Kyle W., Luthans, Brett
C..; Organizational Behavior : An Evidence-based
Approach
Account: s3563253
APPLICATIONS 149
111. their symbolic nature.83
Much of organization is based on attributions rather than
physical or observed realities
under this view.84 For example, research has found that
symbols are a salient source of
information used by people in forming their impressions of
psychological climate.85
Other Attributions
Attribution theory obviously contributes a great deal to the
better understanding of
work motivation and organizational behavior. However, other
dimensions besides the
internal and external locus of control also need to be accounted
for and studied. Bernard
Weiner, for example, suggested that a stability (fixed or
variable) dimension must also be
recognized.86 Experienced employees will probably have a
stable internal attribution about
their abilities but an unstable internal attribution concerning
effort. By the same token,
these employees may have a stable external attribution about
task difficulty but an unstable
external attribution about luck.
Besides the stability dimension, Kelley suggests that
dimensions such as consensus
(do others act this way in this situation?), consistency (does this
person act this way in this
situation at other times?), and distinctiveness (does this person
act differently in other sit-
uations?) will affect the type of attributions that are made.87
Figure 6.6 shows how this type
of information affects the attributes that are made in evaluating
112. employee behavior. To
keep these dimensions straight, it can be remembered that
consensus relates to other peo-
ple, distinctiveness relates to other tasks, and consistency
relates to time.88 As shown in
Figure 6.6, if there is high consensus, low consistency, and high
distinctiveness, then attri-
bution to external or situational/environmental causes will
probably be made. The external
attribution may be that the task is too difficult or that outside
pressures from home or
coworkers are hindering performance. However, if there is low
consensus, high consis-
tency, and low distinctiveness, then attributions to internal or
personal causes for the
behavior will probably be made. The supervisor making an
internal attribution may con-
clude that the associate just doesn’t have the ability, or is not
giving the necessary effort, or
does not have the motivation to perform well. There is some
research evidence from field
settings to directly support predictions from the Kelley
model.89
In addition to Kelley, other well-known theorists, such as
Weiner, use attribution the-
ory to help explain achievement motivation and to predict
subsequent changes in perfor-
mance and how people feel about themselves.90 Some research
findings from Weiner’s
work include the following:Co
py
ri
gh
t
121. commonly credit themselves, but they are more likely to
attribute losses to something
else—bad breaks, poor officiating, or the other team’s superior
effort.94 When something
goes wrong in the workplace, there is a tendency for the
manager to blame the problem on
the inability or poor attitude of associates, but the situation is
blamed as far as he or she per-
sonally is concerned. The reverse is true of associates. They
blame the situation for their
difficulties but make a personal attribution in terms of their
manager. By the same token, if
something goes well, the manager makes personal attributions
for him- or herself and situ-
ational attributions for associates, and the associates make
personal attributions for them-
selves but situational attributions for the manager. In other
words, it is typical to have
conflicting attributional biases among managers and associates
in organizations.95
As a way of creating more productive relationships, theorists
and researchers suggest
that efforts must be made to reduce divergent perceptions and
perspectives among the par-
ties through increased interpersonal interaction, open
communication channels and work-
shops, and team-building sessions devoted to reducing
attributional errors.96 Although
Martinko, in his book on Attribution Theory, demonstrates the
validity and potential of
attributional perspectives within an organizational context,
theoretical, information pro-
cessing, and situational factors all affect the attribution models
of organizational behav-
ior.97 Despite this complexity, attribution theory does seem to
122. have considerable potential
for application and relevance, instead of being a purely
academic exercise in theory build-
ing.
Other Work Motivation Theories: Control and Agency
In addition to the micro-oriented expectancy and equity
motivation theories coming
out of cognitive psychology, there are other, more broad-based
theories that have emerged
in organizational behavior. Representatives of such theories are
control theory and agency
theory.
One version of control theory, like the other theories discussed
so far, is essentially a
cognitive phenomenon relating to the degree that individuals
perceive they are in control
of their own lives, or are in control of their jobs. Recent studies
have shown that those who
believe they have such personal control tolerate unpleasant
events and experience less
stress on the job than those who do not perceive such control.98
There is also some evi-
dence that perceived control will affect job satisfaction and
absenteeism.99 Another ver-
sion of control theory, which also has implications for
organizational behavior, relates to
the more traditional management function of control.
Traditional guidelines for effective
management have included controlling both the inputs and
outputs of organizations, but
research has also analyzed strategically controlling human
resources as well.100 Especially
relevant to today’s workplace environment is that a sense of
127. individuals (the principal) engaging another person or persons
(the agent) to perform some
service on their behalf.102 The key to agency theory is the
assumption that the interests of
principals and agents diverge or may be in conflict with one
another. The implications for
organizational behavior involve how the principals (owners,
board members, or top man-
agement) can limit divergence from their interests or objectives
by establishing appropriate
rewards or incentives for the agents (subordinates, middle
management, or operating
employees) for appropriate outcomes. Although there was initial
research evidence sup-
porting an agency theory interpretation of areas in
organizational behavior such as pay for
performance,103 compensation contracts,104 foreign subsidiary
compensation strate-
gies,105 and variable pay compensation strategies,106 however,
a recent meta-analysis of
empirical ownership-performance studies found little overall
support for agency theory.107
Yet, agency theory is often used to explain some of the excesses
and ethical meltdowns that
have occurred in organizations in recent years. For example,
Don Hambrick recently
observed the following:
Today’s top executives, in America at least, are exceedingly
obsessed with shareholder
value, in ways that their predecessors were not. This obsession
is due to the new “rules
of the game” that the executives themselves face—rules that
agency theorists applaud,
even if they didn’t literally engineer them.108
128. Like the other cognitive-based theories, agency theory helps us
better understand the
motivation of managers in today’s organizations. However,
because of the complexities
involved, as was also noted in the other work motivation
theories, agency theory obviously
is not the final answer. One primary criticism of agency theory
that has emerged is that,
agency theory strongly emphasizes the roles that various forms
of extrinsic motives play in
shaping behaviors. Conversely, intrinsic motives, which may be
quite powerful, are not
accounted for in agency models. When combined with notions
of control or the lack of
control in a setting, the bias generated by an extrinsic-motive
model may confuse any study
or theoretical development.109 Yet, as one argument for
employee ownership noted, firms
indicated that 75 percent experienced increases in sales, profits,
and stock price when
employees became owners and another study indicated that
companies with employee
stock ownership plans had total shareholder returns about 7
percent greater than firms
where employees did not have an opportunity for ownership.110
Recently, agency theory has been expanded to the macro level.
It has been used to
explain financing decisions in franchising operations111 and to
study the various forms of
control that limit the decision-making authority of professional
service organizations.112 In
the latter study, community control, bureaucratic control, and
client control combined with
the degree of self-control exhibited by the professional service
agent to reduce decision-mak-
133. design is an increasingly
important application technique. Most importantly, the nature of
work is changing because
of advanced information technology and globalization.
Consequently, two new develop-
ments have emerged. The first is a blurring of the distinction
between on-work and off-
work time. A person carrying a cell phone and/or PDA (personal
digital assistant) and a
home office containing a fax machine and Internet access is “at
work” even when not in the
office and is “on-call” practically every moment of the day.
This includes drive time and
time spent in airports or while flying across the world. The
second development, which is
tied to the first, is the rising number of telecommuting jobs or
teleworking, in which the
employee performs substantial amounts of work at home. An
increasing number of organi-
zations provide employees with advanced information
technology for home use. These
recent trends create new challenges for job design models,
which are already based on an
extensive and growing theoretical and research base and are
being widely applied to the
actual practice of management. A summary of the major job
design applications follows.
Job Rotation
The simplest form of job design involves moving employees
from one relatively sim-
ple job to another after short time periods (one hour, half-days,
every day). For example, at
McDonald’s, an employee may cook French fries one day, fry
hamburgers the next, wait
134. on the front counter during the next shift, and draw soft drinks
the next. This form of job
rotation has several advantages. First, the odds of injury are
reduced, as each worker must
refocus on a new task throughout the workday. Further, the
incidence of repetitive strain
injuries (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome) may also be reduced.
Second, as employees learn
sets of tasks, they are more flexible and able to cover for
someone who is absent or who
quits. Third, supervisors who are promoted from the ranks know
more about how the entire
operation works. A manager promoted from the ranks at
McDonald’s after only six months
on the job has probably been exposed to every production task
performed at the unit. The
primary disadvantage of job rotation is that each individual task
eventually becomes as
boring as the rest of the simple tasks. In other words, over the
long term there is no substan-
tial difference between cooking French fries and frying
hamburgers. Consequently, job sat-
isfaction and/or performance may decline. Rotation does,
however, have some research
evidence showing a positive impact,113 especially for cross-
training and developing
employees for broadened responsibilities.114 In any event, it is
a better alternative to job
design than doing nothing.
Job Enlargement
This job design process involves increasing the number of tasks
each employee per-
forms. A sales clerk who waits on customers, finalizes the sale,
helps with credit applica-
139. jobs assigned to the members of the organization who remain.
The survivors with anxiety
of “I’m next” and greatly enlarged jobs are less, rather than
more, satisfied and committed
to the organization.
Job Enrichment
Job enrichment represents an extension of the earlier, more
simplified job rotation and
job enlargement techniques of job design. Because it is a direct
outgrowth of Herzberg’s
two-factor theory of motivation (covered earlier in the chapter),
the assumption is that in
order to motivate personnel, the job must be designed to provide
opportunities for achieve-
ment, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and growth. The
technique entails “enrich-
ing” the job so that these factors are included. In particular, job
enrichment is concerned
with designing jobs that include a greater variety of work
content; require a higher level of
knowledge and skill; give workers more autonomy and
responsibility in terms of planning,
directing, and controlling their own performance; and provide
the opportunity for personal
growth and a meaningful work experience. As opposed to job
rotation and job enlarge-
ment, which horizontally loads the job, job enrichment
vertically loads the job; there are
not necessarily more tasks to perform, but more responsibility
and accountability. For
example, instead of having workers do a mundane, specialized
task, then passing off to
another worker doing another minute part of the task, and
eventually having an inspector
140. at the end, under job enrichment, the worker would be given a
complete module of work to
do (job enlargement) and, importantly, would inspect his or her
own work (responsibility)
and put a personal identifier on it (accountability).
As with the other application techniques discussed in this text,
job enrichment is not a
panacea for all job design problems facing modern management.
After noting that there are
documented cases where this approach to job design did not
work, Miner concluded that
the biggest problem is that traditional job enrichment has little
to say about when and why
the failures can be expected to occur.115 Some of the
explanations that have been suggested
include that job enrichment is difficult to truly implement, that
many employees simply
prefer an old familiar job to an enriched job, and that employees
in general and unions in
particular are resistant to the change. Some employees have
expressed preferences for
higher pay rather than enriched jobs, and others enjoy their
current patterns of on-the-job
socialization and friendships more than they do increased
responsibility and autonomy.
Essentially, job enrichment in some situations may inhibit a
person’s social life at work.
Despite some potential limitations, job enrichment is still a
viable approach, and
research provides continuing evidence that it has mostly
beneficial results (more employee
satisfaction and customer service, less employee overload, and
fewer employee errors).116
145. 015
FIGURE 6.7. The Hackman-Oldham Job Characteristics Model
of Work Motivation
CORE JOB
CHARACTERISTICS
Variety of skill Identity
of the task Significance
of the task
Autonomy
Feedback
CRITICAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL
STATES
Experienced meaningfulness
of the work
Experienced responsibility
for work outcomes
Knowledge of results
from work activities
Moderated by
employee growth-
need strength
PERSONAL
AND WORK
146. OUTCOMES
High internal
work motivation
High-quality
work performance
High satisfaction
with the work
Low turnover
and absenteeism
the job scope, and employee motivation. Richard Hackman and
Greg Oldham developed
the most widely recognized model of job characteristics,119
shown in Figure 6.7. This
model recognizes that certain job characteristics contribute to
certain psychological states
and that the strength of employees’ need for growth has an
important moderating effect.
The core job characteristics can be summarized briefly as
follows:
1. Skill variety refers to the extent to which the job requires the
employee to draw from a
number of different skills and abilities as well as on a range of
knowledge.
2. Task identity refers to whether the job has an identifiable
beginning and end. How
complete a module of work does the employee perform?
3. Task significance involves the importance of the task. It
involves both internal signif-
icance—how important is the task to the organization?—and
external significance—
how proud are employees to tell relatives, friends, and
147. neighbors what they do and
where they work?
4. Autonomy refers to job independence. How much freedom
and control do employees
have, for example, to schedule their own work, make decisions,
or determine the
means to accomplish objectives?
5. Feedback refers to objective information about progress and
performance and can
come from the job itself or from supervisors or an information
system.
The critical psychological states can be summarized as follows:
1. Meaningfulness. This cognitive state involves the degree to
which employees per-
ceive their work as making a valued contribution, as being
important and worthwhile.
2. Responsibility. This state is concerned with the extent to
which employees feel a
sense of being personally responsible or accountable for the
work being done.
3. Knowledge of results. Coming directly from the feedback,
this psychological state
involves the degree to which employees understand how they
are performing in the
job.
In essence, this model says that certain job characteristics lead
to critical psychological
states. That is, skill variety, task identity, and task significance
lead to experienced mean-
